pueblonative:Pocket Ninja: Um, subby? Maybe you could try studying American history before you make stupid comments? Look at black people in America. For centuries, white people enslaved black people, then segregated them, then denied them voting rights, and what happened as a result? Black people rose up and achieved greatness and equality. It's a similar story with women...for a long time, they were basically the property of men. They suffered abuse, they couldn't vote. But their adversities gave them strength, and now they have jobs and earn almost as much as men.

Would black people and women have been able to achieve these goals, win despite all the various adversities in their path, if things had simply been handed to them from the beginning? If they'd been like spoiled rich children born with silver spoons in their mouths?

That right there is the basic divide between Right and Left in America. The Right says, "I believe in your ability to overcome." The Left says, "I don't believe you can succeed without my handouts and concern." Which is truly the more enlightened view? I ask you that.

xanadian:/also, I live in the f#*%ing County. Northern Deliverance country. I think people up here are *born* Republican

Being a Republican is a Learned Behavior.

Benevolent Misanthrope:SkinnyHead: RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: "The Texas Democratic Party has always been proud to be the party of inclusion, the party of all people,"

So does that mean there will be a pro-marriage booth at the democrat convention?

Being for same-sex marriage IS pro-marriage, but nice try.

But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views? Will the "party of inclusion, the party of all people" allow them to set up a booth at their convention?

Hell - in Washington State, the Dems run them for office until they turn their coats.

Actual quotation:Today, it's the Republican Party that offers a big tent, welcoming different views, from moderates like Secretary of State Kim Wyman and Senator Steve Litzow, to conservatives in Eastern Washington

I bet at their gatherings they play both kinds of music, country and western.

I'm sure that you are probably correct more than you are incorrect, but it is possible for someone to say "listen, if I created the universe, I'd want people to be happy in any way they can, but I fully, truly, and honestly believe that the Bible is the true and immutable word of God, and He says it's not cool. I didn't make the rule, and I don't like the rule, but who am I to countermand God?"

If you truly believe in God, this would not be a hypocritical position, just a sad one.

true, although some of the hypocrisy comes from the fact that they ignore all the other crazy stuff in leviticus. and they ignore them because even they know that some of those things don't make any sense in the modern world. can you imagine if part of the GOP official stance was repeatedly trying to make eating shrimp illegal? they alrady lose their minds at the mere suggestion that kids should have vegetables in their school lunches..

Lenny_da_Hog:Then again, the booth's design included three walls with 3" holes drilled in various places in the walls.

Knocking back a few, so run away before I put you in a headlock and start telling you I love you, but I've always enjoyed your humor and insight. I think some of your Alaska oil stuff and some of the Palin stuff was very educational for me. I don't keep notes so please tell me I have the right login.

SkinnyHead:Serious Black: For ages, it was legal and traditional to keep other human beings as personal property. If you were alive in 1860 and were asked to vote on whether slavery should be outlawed, would you have voted to preserve the traditional meaning of property rights?

/ invoke slavery not to compare gay marriage to chattel but to say that tradition itself is not an acceptable argument

We should discontinue traditions that do harm to others. Slavery harmed others. Defining marriage between a man and a woman does no harm to others. It is not unfair to maintain the tradition of marriage. If people want to live in new, non-traditional relationships, they should create new traditions of their own. Why do they have to mess with the tradition of marriage?

Fine. Eliminate all benefits outside of marriage then (ie, tax breaks, consideration of adoption viability, power of attorney, et al)

Rixel:SkinnyHead: Serious Black: For ages, it was legal and traditional to keep other human beings as personal property. If you were alive in 1860 and were asked to vote on whether slavery should be outlawed, would you have voted to preserve the traditional meaning of property rights?

/ invoke slavery not to compare gay marriage to chattel but to say that tradition itself is not an acceptable argument

We should discontinue traditions that do harm to others. Slavery harmed others. Defining marriage between a man and a woman does no harm to others. It is not unfair to maintain the tradition of marriage. If people want to live in new, non-traditional relationships, they should create new traditions of their own. Why do they have to mess with the tradition of marriage?

Fine. Eliminate all benefits outside of marriage then (ie, tax breaks, consideration of adoption viability, power of attorney, et al)

Karac:If you think a homosexual couple want to be husband and wife, then your problem with gay marriage is not bigotry or trolling, but a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the word "homosexual".

Thank you, Karac. I'm not trying to be a bigot or a troll. Maybe I don't understand homosexual. My focus has been on the meaning of marriage, as I understand it.

serpent_sky:shower_in_my_socks: You guys know that Skinnyhead is a longtime Fark troll, right? None of the stupid shiat that he says is meant to be taken seriously. Most Farkers put him on ignore a long time ago.

Yes, but I'm bored and have been enjoying farking with him today... probably because I haven't been in threads with him in a while. (I don't put anyone on ignore, even the trolls are entertaining sometimes. I can't drive and a girl in a cast doesn't go out walking by herself. I spend a lot of time alone.)

Because they don't want lazy poors to get welfare? Because they hate taxes? Because they buy into the whole free market Randian crap many republicans do? Because they're gun nuts and want to protect their rights to carry assault rifles?

Being gay is just one facet of any person's personality. There is always something more, and sometimes it's that more that leads them to think the republican party is pretty awesome.

This might be the dumbest post I've ever seen on Fark. That's quite an achievement.

Soup4Bonnie:Lenny_da_Hog: Then again, the booth's design included three walls with 3" holes drilled in various places in the walls.

Knocking back a few, so run away before I put you in a headlock and start telling you I love you, but I've always enjoyed your humor and insight. I think some of your Alaska oil stuff and some of the Palin stuff was very educational for me. I don't keep notes so please tell me I have the right login.

SkinnyHead:Karac: If you think a homosexual couple want to be husband and wife, then your problem with gay marriage is not bigotry or trolling, but a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the word "homosexual".

Thank you, Karac. I'm not trying to be a bigot or a troll. Maybe I don't understand homosexual. My focus has been on the meaning of marriage, as I understand it.

Ah! The pointy thing goes into the holey thing (of the one with the bumpy things and the front one not the back one)....or do you mean the small human thing drops out of the other human thing part. Careful now...I have left a few pitfalls, there Harry.

Traditional marriage was destroyed by the Nineteenth Amendment. Gay marriage is not an attempt to provide traditional marriage (the transfer of property, namely a woman, from her father to her husband) to same-sex couples, it's an attempt to provide them the twentieth-century definition of marriage (a contract between two equal parties).

Being gay is more than just a part of my personality. That's like saying being Black is just a part of a person's personality. As long as the Republican Party tells gay people we should be ashamed for being who we are and we should not have the same rights as the rest of the populace, why in hell would any gay person seek to further that? And don't say it's only a small part of Republicanism - one look at the news will tell you it's the goddamn centrepiece of their social agenda.

There are black republicans too. There are women republicans. There are all sorts of groups that are explicitly or implicity discriminated against by republicans, who are republicans.

I don't have any other explaination for it, and I have no intention to offend by my statements. I don't know how anyone who is openly gay can be a republican, except that they value other parts of their personality or other values more than being gay.

It's because in every single other instance the rest of the party thinks it's kind of cute they are taking part and it's good publicity to be able to trot out a token minority so they are supported. Except for gay people for some reason.

Corvus:SkinnyHead: But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views? Will the "party of inclusion, the party of all people" allow them to set up a booth at their convention?

Umm they can still have there marriage. You know "gay-marriage" doesn't force man and woman married couples to get divorced. Did you not know this?

"Gay Marriage" legislation is not MANDATORY gay marriage. You get that?

How can a man truly be free unless he can force everyone else to follow his version of morality?

SkinnyHead:RedPhoenix122: SkinnyHead: "The Texas Democratic Party has always been proud to be the party of inclusion, the party of all people,"

So does that mean there will be a pro-marriage booth at the democrat convention?

Being for same-sex marriage IS pro-marriage, but nice try.

But what about people who believe that marriage is between a man and woman, based on their religious views? Will the "party of inclusion, the party of all people" allow them to set up a booth at their convention?

Well, that would be like having a booth for people who believe the earth is flat at a science convention.

SkinnyHead:serpent_sky: Actually, most Democrats say churches should have the right to marry who they want and maintain their own rules (as it is, churches can refuse to marry a man and woman. I was married in a Catholic church (ex's choice) and I had to go through interviews with the priest. He could have (and probably should have) said no.

We just think the state should recognize legal marriages. Separation of church and state. Nobody wants to force the churches to do anything they want, and in turn, we don't want the churches to have a hand in the rule of law for those of us who don't share their faith/beliefs.

Is that really so hard to understand?

I understand your position. The question is, who gets to decide what is a "legal marriage" that the state is supposed to recognize. For ages, a legal marriage is one man and one woman. Marriage unites a man and a woman as one flesh. As a voter, if I am asked to vote on whether the state should change that time-honored traditional meaning of marriage, I vote no. I'm not a church. My vote does not violate the separation of church and state. But he Democrat party thinks that my vote should not count and that I should get no say in the matter. That's not very democratic.

Listen, dipshiat, marriage is up to the two people in love, not the voters.

Animatronik:ScaryBottles: Sorry but I have zero sympathy for the Uncle Tom's log cabin republicans.

Traitors to the Democratic Party, eh?That's just part of the Democrats' game plan:

1.). Portray the opposition as composed entirely, without exception, of racists and bigots.2.) Label anyone who belongs to a group that the Democratic Party "owns" who votes for the opposition as an Uncle Tom.2.) Attach yourself to every social spending program designed to appeal to the special interest groups that you need to keep in the party fold.

3.) Do irreparable damage to our economy, society, and infrastructure, while blaming the rich for everything and borrowing money out the wazoo.

4.) Profit...Until the system blows up, at which point you do everything you can to make voters forget you created the system.

Nobody important gives a shiat who you think is an Uncle Tom. That would be people who believe that everyone has a right to use their brains and choose the best ideas , instead of toeing your party's line.

Not really responding to a troll, but just reading the things he projects onto Democrats is very insightful into the how the conservative mind works. It's a sad, angry, cynical existence.

Benevolent Misanthrope:Steve Munisteri, chairman of the Texas Republican Party, confirmed to TPM that the group's application was denied because of its stance on gay marriage. He explained that the Texas GOP has a formal policy against allowing groups that advocate positions contrary its platform to have booths at conventions.

Pocket Ninja:That right there is the basic divide between Right and Left in America. The Right says, "I believe in your ability to overcome." The Left says, "I don't believe you can succeed without my handouts and concern." Which is truly the more enlightened view? I ask you that.

From my perspective, this is very very wrong.

The right says "If I use my success to benefit myself, I will benefit greatly at the possible expense of others". The left says "If we use our success to benefit everyone, then we will all benefit moderately".

SkinnyHead:Karac: If you think a homosexual couple want to be husband and wife, then your problem with gay marriage is not bigotry or trolling, but a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the word "homosexual".

Thank you, Karac. I'm not trying to be a bigot or a troll. Maybe I don't understand homosexual. My focus has been on the meaning of marriage, as I understand it.

The meaning of marriage as you understand it isn't even close to the "traditional" definition. I mean, you are even OK with a black guy marrying a white woman. That sure as hell isn't traditional.

Being gay is more than just a part of my personality. That's like saying being Black is just a part of a person's personality. As long as the Republican Party tells gay people we should be ashamed for being who we are and we should not have the same rights as the rest of the populace, why in hell would any gay person seek to further that? And don't say it's only a small part of Republicanism - one look at the news will tell you it's the goddamn centrepiece of their social agenda.

There are black republicans too. There are women republicans. There are all sorts of groups that are explicitly or implicity discriminated against by republicans, who are republicans.

I don't have any other explaination for it, and I have no intention to offend by my statements. I don't know how anyone who is openly gay can be a republican, except that they value other parts of their personality or other values more than being gay.

The explanation is easy: lots of people are stupid, and will vote against their own self interests.

tinfoil-hat maggie:namatad: The state Republican Party's 2012 platform states its position on homosexuality:We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle, in public policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin. Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or belief in traditional values.

The GOP needs to implement a PURITY TEST and expel anyone who fails the test.Woman works out of the house, has kids and didnt get permission from husband?or is a single mom? buh byeGay? But havent gone public and prayed to god to be cured? buh byebrown? adiosrape victim? get out you slutabortion? STONE HERdrugs? death (unless it was harmless youthful indiscretion and you are a Bush)

Galileo's Daughter:Cyberluddite: serpent_sky: I'm cool with that except they pick and choose. The Bible is not full of anti-gay rhetoric, it barely even mentions homosexuality and the line they always use is open to interpretation. There are tons and tons of rules in the Bible -- express rules -- and they ignore those. Jesus wasn't hateful. Jesus was inclusive. Jesus cared about the poor.

Not to mention--and I'm no biblical scholar here, in fact, I'll admit that I'm about the furthest thing from it--that I thought that deal was that Jesus supposedly relieved his followers of following the Lord's laws/curses spelled out in Leviticus (which of course is what they claim as their source for the supposed godly ban on homosexuality) by taking on the burden of those laws himself. So for some reason Christians seem to feel that Jebus gave them the thumbs-up to eat pork and shellfish, and shave their beards if they want, but yet that somehow the one passage of Leviticus about how a man must not "lie with a man as he lieth with a woman" is exempted from Jesus's relief of those laws and is still in force.

Any Christians here want to enlighten us about how that supposedly works?

Okay, I'll give it a try. Yes, Jesus's sacrificial death made the law obsolete; the book of Hebrews contrasts this in many chapters. But there are a couple of passages in the New Testament that also mention homosexuality and that are used by right wingers:

Romans 1:24-2724Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:99Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

Nevermind that those passages weren't said by Jesus or anyone who knew him.

Perlin Noise:Pocket Ninja: That right there is the basic divide between Right and Left in America. The Right says, "I believe in your ability to overcome." The Left says, "I don't believe you can succeed without my handouts and concern." Which is truly the more enlightened view? I ask you that.

From my perspective, this is very very wrong.

The right says "If I use my success to benefit myself, I will benefit greatly at the possible expense of others". The left says "If we use our success to benefit everyone, then we will all benefit moderately".